Part 1

Lol, okay semantic dispute time I guess. What exactly is your definition of a “critical analysis of imperialism”.

Definitely not purely a semantic dispute. Have you read Lenin? Lenin's analysis of imperialism still stands as the dominant critical analysis of imperialism, though there has been some recent attempts to update it to adapt to the new form imperialism caused by unipolar hegemony under the name superimperialism or hyperimperialism.

“The Han Chinese population share has increased sharply in the TAR, encouraged by massive subsidies from the central government that exceeded 100 percent of the TAR GDP from 2010 onwards”

The context of that sentence in the report shows that in culturally Tibetan regions outside the Tibet Autonomous Region are showing opposite trends, meaning that "ethnic minorities" are becoming majorities. Clearly this is not a program of Han supremacy but of social integration. Autonomous regions are not meant to be insular, but integrated into one country with multiple systems. Compare this to actual colonialism, where colonists use rape, child separation, enslavement, cultural repression, starvation, land fractionalization, and other techniques to dilute and dismantle ethnic minorities. China is doing none of this. In the TAR, the Tibetan language is used to conduct nearly all business and all education, from grade school through university. That is not colonialism.

Yeah, spending more than 100% of the TARs entire gdp on subsidizing migration… not insidious at all.

It's only insidious if you presuppose the intent.

Lol, and how many of these ethnic minority leaders have ever been in charge of their region?

Well, considering that the top position of party secretary is the only referenced in your quotation, and considering the autonomous regions experience a significant amount of indigenous cultural practices on all dimensions, we must imagine that a Han Chinese party secretary can't possibly be anyone that has the requisite social history to be responsible for that flourishing. Given that, we come to the conclusion that, in fact, the indigenous members of the autonomous regions wield significant influence over their regions and that the party secretary does exactly what a party secretary that is correctly managing an autonomous region would do - ensuring alignment with the state's core strategic direction. That means ensuring the autonomous regions are not infiltrated by Western spoilers, elevating compradors to positions of influence or power, and ensuring party resources are allocated in ways that maintain good relations with the region. If this was not what was happening, then you would be seeing separatists and sympathizers all over the place. Instead what we see is separatists are almost exclusively associated with Western programs for destabilization and most of the population in the autonomous regions are aware of the need for protecting their region against these interests. When the US is training Tibetan terrorists and air lifting them into the region to conduct acts of violence and build terror networks, it's pretty important to maintain a counter-intelligence posture even in autonomous regions.

Again, this is just a semantic dispute surrounding the meaning of colonialism. Even if colonialism was invented by the west, you yourself admit it was imported and practiced by the Japanese. China is obviously not in a vacuum of influence and is perfectly able to modify western colonialism to suit their needs.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the West invented colonialism. I'm saying the colonialism you are talking about is explicitly a phenomenon of Western society. Japan adopting it doesn't stop it from being a Western social project, that would be race essentialism. China is actively working to undo the damage of colonialism qua the Western social phenomenon. It cannot do so by replicating it.

But more to the point, you assume that China would get the same benefit of colonialism that the West did and is therefore incentivized to engage in Western colonialism. This is where your belief about the world does not match the reality of the world. The reality is that Western colonialism is fatally flawed and those countries that engaged in it are being undone by it. China is aware of this and is actively working to bring about the conditions that ensure the contradictions of Western society move inexorably towards the resolution of those contradictions by the undoing of the colonial project. If China were to then begin its own colonial project, it would be doing so with the full knowledge that it would ultimately destroy China. This is what Western chauvinists can't seem to grasp. The anti-imperialist movement is fully aware of how unsustainable the North Atlantic project is. They have no desire to emulate it. Western chauvinists just think that imperialism worked really well and now all the anti-imperialists just want to become imperialists in their own right, because obviously your opponents are guilty of the same things you are guilty of, right? But that's just projection. Modern anti-imperialists movements are based on Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and are fully aware of the absolute death trap that imperialism is. Their understanding of the world and how it works is that if they engage in imperialism, they will collapse, just like the West is collapsing. Don't project your bad behavior onto China.

Lol, okay… sure. You just spent a page defending imperialism, but sure.

You don't know what imperialism is. Your definition of imperialism is so anemic that it cannot distinguish between imperialism and anti-imperialism.

(Continued in Part 2)

Part 2:

Ahh yes, highlighting data made public by the 2020 Chinese census , automatically means I’m working for the state department.

Just because you regurgitate propaganda doesn't mean you work for them. I would never accuse you of having the requisite skills to work for the US State Department. You cherry picked data from the 2020 census and repeated a narrative around those isolated facts that fits the Western narrative. It's not my fault you can't see through the bullshit.

I’m guessing your talking about their invasion of Vietnam? The one that had running conflicts until the 90s, the one that is still hampering Sino-Vietnamese relations till today? How is that any different than Tibet, other than Vietnam could actually defend itself?

If you don't know the answer to this question, then you don't really have any business talking about this. Ignorance is not a position that must be respected. Your position is based on ignorance, not research and analysis. In essence, you can't tell the difference between Vietnam and Tibet because your analysis is based purely on vibes and moralizing. Suffice to say, Han chauvinism regarding Vietnam was based on the idea that China knows best, whereas the TAR is based on the rectification of that idea that national security and foreign policy have wholly different qualities than domestic policy and that autonomous regions are a dialectical unity between the need for national security and the need for cultural autonomy.

I would have to partially agree with this to a degree, America has always had fascist leanings. But, it’s be a lot more accurate to say that they were emulating Italy.

No, it wouldn't. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that one of his goals was to bring the American system of apartheid and dominance to the Slavs. It would not be more accurate to say the 3rd Reich was emulating Italy. The 3rd Reich openly studied Jim Crow, American eugenics, frontier and border town strategies, the Indian reservation system, etc. The 3rd Reich literally grew from the Western European project that the USA perfected and helmed. When the 3rd Reich fell, the movement was absorbed back into the USA where it continued to develop.

My rebuttal to this would be that the CCP also emulated the United States when they switched to a socialized market economy.

Which again is more vibes than anything else. If you actually read Chinese party publications, 5-year plans, and everything else they publish, you would see that nothing could be further from the truth. China is not emulating the US, they are arranging their economic policies to ensnare Western bourgeoisie. In fact, that phase is nearly over, having successfully convinced the Western bourgeoisie to put their capital into China to develop China beyond the West while simultaneously convincing the West to deindustrialize. There is no equivalent to Mein Kampf in China, nothing that analyzes the American or European system as effective or better or something worth reproducing and advancing. There is nothing similar in China to Japan's wholesale adoption of the Western imperialism program (though there is that interesting point in Japanese history where they wholesale adopted the Chinese system of social organization and then tailored it to their context).

Ahh, were bad because you made us be bad… makes more sense when applied to the soviets… not so much when applied to Asia. What American scheme required dismantling in Tibet or any of the autonomous regions?

Oh boy. I don't know if we can have this conversation. I'm not really equipped to be your teacher here. Your question, rephrased is "Why did China make autonomous regions and what does it have to do with America?" The first problems is that you see America as the background but America is the foreground, the background is the North Atlantic project of Euro-centric imperialism through racialized capitalism. If you look at the history of the North Atlantic in the Asia-Pacific region, you're going to see a lot of the things China has done are very closely matched to things that the North Atlantic countries have done. Vietnam was a French colony, and America took the torch from them. The Philippines were occupied by the Spanish, and America took over from them. America turned half of Korea into a wasteland and the other half into a nuclear base, but it took it over from the Japanese who had made Korea a colony. The UK was in India and doing all sorts of anti-communist fuckery at the time but also had spent a century building their imperialism and especially their dominance of China. And then of course you have everything happening in the "Middle East" by the USA, UK, France, and other European imperialists, and that's yet-another-front through which to isolate, encircle, and destabilize China.

China isn't doing anything "bad". There is no "bad". The moral framing is a useless one. My sentence was "China’s project necessarily involves the opposition to and dismantling of the American project." There's a lot to understand from that. First, when China pushes the USA, UK, and Japan out of their space, it's not imperialism, it's anti-imperialism. Second, what China is doing is explicitly NOT replicating what the West did and then tuning it to meet their context. What China is doing is finding a path that involves exactly not replicating the colonialist and imperialist structures that are going to destroy the West because China doesn't want to be destroyed like the West is being destroyed. The fact that you think I was saying "China is bad because other people made them bad" shows you have no idea what China is actually doing.

Again, my point was that we should develop criticism that are not automatically juxtaposed to western imperialism… and you just can’t allow it.

You can't develop self crit from a position of abject ignorance. Stop trying to figure out how to be morally superior by engaging in criticism of the fantasy China that you have not investigated at all and start trying to develop criticism of China by studying it thoroughly and with intellectual honesty. There are plenty of things to criticize China for from a Marxist perspective. You haven't found a single one of those things.